32 hole -- 2x or 3x

Home building up my first set of wheels in about 25 years, so it's almost like starting over again. Have a set of 32 hole Velocity A23s and Circus Monkey hubs coming for a set of cross/dirt road wheels. Will use a 14g DB spoke (mfg TBD yet) and brass nips.

For lacing I was planning 3x fr and rr, but I've seen some recommendations for 2x. What's the difference, and how should I decide which pattern to choose?

In dt's 28h case, you get 14 spokes with effective flange diameter of 36.7 -> 514.44

A total of 400 and above ismore than adequate to take care of torque forces. Even for the strongest sprinter
Radial loads is what always should be ones concern

I recommend 2X. Gives U a stronger and stiffer set of wheels.
NDS with it's small flange aint that important..I'd do it 2x too...Don't like no radial lacing.
Want it a tad stronger (but not as stiff) go 1X head out NDS

If you don't know what I'm talking about...Go 3X all the way if that makes U feel safer

You are always trying to ensure that once the wheel is built that spokes transferring torsional force leave the hub flange at as close to 90 degrees possible. (rear wheels) This loads each spoke completely linearly and allows for the most seamless transfer of driving force from the hub to the rim.

There are no hard and fast rules but these are the variables that I keep in mind when building.

1 is the hub flange diameter. As this gets bigger the spokes will leave the hub at an increasingly acute angle

2 is the number of spokes being used. As this gets larger the respective spoke holes on the rim and hub get closer together. This means each spoke leaves the hub at a much more obtuse angle because less distance needs to be traveled top meet the required number of crosses.

3 is the ERD of the rim. AS this gets smaller the rims is closer to the hub. This means that in order for a spoke to make the respective number of crosses it has less (radial) real estate to travel and thus must make a much more acute exit from the hub in order to cross the required number of spokes.

After building with many hub and spoke patterns here are the general trends that I find.
24 hole 2x
28 and 32 hole 3x

One notable exception to this rule is an ENVE 68 28 hole built onto a Powertap. Because of a very small ERD and large flange diameter a 2x will allow a nearly 90 degree angle between spoke and flange.

teleguy,
Being that your using a hoop with a large ERD and a hub with a standard flange diameter it would be ideal for you to use a 3x pattern to ensure as close to a 90 degree angle between flange and spoke as possible. As for the pattern on the front I have posted several times on my opinions in earlier threads and there are different schools of thought on the topic. I suggest that you do either a radial or 1x elbows out pattern. With that said if you would like the wheels to have the same pattern so that they match 3x would be just fine.

Zen- thanks for the synopsis. I may try to find some spokes laying around and tinker with patterns. My gut feeling is that 3x would be quite feasible, as the the hubs are small flange and the ERD is larger. At the same time, I want to consider the possiblity that 2x may be a better choice.

On your describe small flange, large ERD, there's no benefit going 2X
The spokes will only be symbolic shorter, angles hardly changed at all
and you will get a bit more movement in the spokeholes, causing wear.

My recommendation would be going on a slightly thinner spoke NDS.

As for always aiming for as close to 90degrees as possible..
How come Zipp, Shimano and Mavic run radial DS?
They don't know better? Someone should tell'em

Where did you find the hub dimensions? I have the rims in hand to measure ERD, still waiting on the hubs and haven't found specs on line so I could calculate spoke lengths and get those ordered. Thanks!

Where did you find the hub dimensions? I have the rims in hand to measure ERD, still waiting on the hubs and haven't found specs on line so I could calculate spoke lengths and get those ordered. Thanks!

I am also not quite sure how the 3X rides nicer? Yes, it is more compliant, but how much?

Well, you can give reasons about bracing angle, stiffness, etc. But longer spokes absorb more stress than shorter ones, and 3x puts less stress on the flange than shallower angles.

As far as the rim entry angle goes, that is usually self correcting. The nipples take their angle from the rim more than the spoke. Take a look.

How much more compliant? It's probably a function of the difference in spoke length.

Wheels have been and continue to be built 3x for reasons that are both historically proven and reasonable. They don't have to be, but I have never seen compelling data (not theories) why another lacing would be superior from the standpoint of wheel longevity (which is the most important factor when building conservative wheels).

If we were talking lower spoke count wheels, where stiffness is an issue because of the larger distance between spoke holes, that would be different. But I can't see a reason to make changes to a proven and relatively conservative wheel system for largely theoretical improvements. And I don't see what you're looking at that convinced you otherwise.

I would also advise against drawing wheelbuilding lessons from the designs of companies like Mavic. Radial lacing is as much marketing as useful. And the R-Sys is an abortion. It really isn't hard to match the weights and durability of radically expensive factory wheels with basic and somewhat conservative wheel building technique. Marketing, and the appearance of innovation sells more wheels than actual performance.

Well, you can give reasons about bracing angle, stiffness, etc. But longer spokes absorb more stress than shorter ones, and 3x puts less stress on the flange than shallower angles.Difference in length is ~1 cm. Compliance is not an issue...67.5 deg compared 45 deg ..Not really much more stressful on the flange. We do no build with 2mm straight gauge anymore

As far as the rim entry angle goes, that is usually self correcting. The nipples take their angle from the rim more than the spoke. Take a look. I have my friend, I have. CF rims and rims without eyelets strugle

How much more compliant? It's probably a function of the difference in spoke length.Of course it is, what else?...And it ain't much

Wheels have been and continue to be built 3x for reasons that are both historically proven and reasonable. They don't have to be, but I have never seen compelling data (not theories) why another lacing would be superior from the standpoint of wheel longevity (which is the most important factor when building conservative wheels).Nothing wrong with 3X...Sometimes its just not the pattern that does the best job, but when in doubt...#x does the job all the way down to 24 spokes as long as we're not talking powertap and bigger

I'm sorry if "don't fix what isn't broken" isn't compelling, but I find theoretical arguments don't stack up to proven solutions.Nothing to fix...Just a matter of making use of improved products.

If we were talking lower spoke count wheels, where stiffness is an issue because of the larger distance between spoke holes, that would be different. But I can't see a reason to make changes to a proven and relatively conservative wheel system for largely theoretical improvements. And I don't see what you're looking at that convinced you otherwise.A 32 spokes straight gauge set is stiff as it gets, uncomfortable and not very inspiring to ride....Why all this talk about stiffness...That is really the less important factor.

I would also advise against drawing wheelbuilding lessons from the designs of companies like Mavic. Radial lacing is as much marketing as useful. And the R-Sys is an abortion. It really isn't hard to match the weights and durability of radically expensive factory wheels with basic and somewhat conservative wheel building technique. Marketing, and the appearance of innovation sells more wheels than actual performance.Oh, by all means I don't. You can download my wheelbuilding classes (in Norwegian thou) and nothing in there would ever recommend radial DS. Didn't I just say it was noteworthy that mavic..explode....bla...bla

Your arguments seem to be a bit circular. There are only two reasons to go to less than 3x on a 32 spoke alloy wheel (I don't know why you brought up CF rims):
1. Weight
2. Stiffness

That's why stiffness is coming up. For a 32 spoke wheel, weight isn't a concern and stiffness isn't a problem, so why increase stiffness by going to shorter, less compliant spokes????

A radial laced 32 spoke wheel is going to be the stiffest, harshest wheel. A 3x is going to go as far as you can go in the opposite direction. 2x and 1x are moves in the direction of increasing wheel stiffness.

Why do you want a 32 spoke wheel to be stiffer and harsher by going to 2x, when you already stated that 32 spoke wheels are already at risk of being too stiff??????

I think 22.5 degrees of flange angle difference and an addition centimeter of spoke are valuable, IF you are building for compliance and longevity. And what other goal does one have with a 32 spoke wheel?

I am ignoring the fact that higher cross angle distributes torque load changes better on drive wheels. But we can get into that if you want.

Your arguments seem to be a bit circular. There are only two reasons to go to less than 3x on a 32 spoke alloy wheel (I don't know why you brought up CF rims):
1. Weight
2. Stiffness

That's why stiffness is coming up. For a 32 spoke wheel, weight isn't a concern and stiffness isn't a problem, so why increase stiffness by going to shorter, less compliant spokes????

A radial laced 32 spoke wheel is going to be the stiffest, harshest wheel. A 3x is going to go as far as you can go in the opposite direction. 2x and 1x are moves in the direction of increasing wheel stiffness.

Why do you want a 32 spoke wheel to be stiffer and harsher by going to 2x, when you already stated that 32 spoke wheels are already at risk of being too stiff??????

I think 22.5 degrees of flange angle difference and an addition centimeter of spoke are valuable, IF you are building for compliance and longevity. And what other goal does one have with a 32 spoke wheel?I'm bidding on a good wheel that will long-last more than a few rimchanges. Enough is enough..No need to ride a rolling brick

I am ignoring the fact that higher cross angle distributes torque load changes better on drive wheels. But we can get into that if you want.No need..I already said enough is enough....More just means worse bracing angle. The bracing angles contribution to stiffness is squared, the length and total cross sectional area linear in both stiffness and torque load changes. Anyways..i think you overestimate the torque loads.

Just for clarity, I've been builidng wheels on and off for 22 years.

Don't take it personal, but you do not seem to understand the physics so having this discussion is a waste. Instead. Read what I say and pick up some valuable info
We're gonna have a mine's bigger than yours kinda discussion too now? No thanks.....
I've been riding a bike all my life....doesn't make me Lance Armstrong

Teleguy: You MAY want to wait til you get your hubs to finalize your spoke order. The rear hub diagram Lectron posted is for a 32 hole rear, but the front is a 20 hole. I don't know about Circus Monkey, but I have seen some of these Tiawanese hubs advertised on ebay that are 32 hole fronts and they specifically state that they have larger flanges to accomodate the extra holes.

Not saying it can't be done, but I don't see how you could squeeze 6 more holes into that size front flange. Nothing wrong with using his diagrams to play around with spoke lengths on the calculators, but may want to wait til hubs are in hand to confirm dimensions.

Don't take it personal, but you do not seem to understand the physics so having this discussion is a waste. Instead. Read what I say and pick up some valuable info
We're gonna have a mine's bigger than yours kinda discussion too now? No thanks.....
I've been riding a bike all my life....doesn't make me Lance Armstrong

I suppose I do take it personally when someone who uses phrases like "rolling brick" and "improved products" thinks they're lecturing me about physics. Especially when you go from advocating radial driveside lacing to decrying it all within one thread.

The only point you seem to be making is that the increased bracing angle between 2x and 3x makes the wheel stronger. I'd say, the diffrence in bracing angle is much smaller than the difference between outside and inside the flange. A fraction of a degree. Insignificant compared to other factors, like spoke length and flange exit angle. And then you'd say "Nuff said", when you haven't said much of anything.

Maybe geometry is different in Norway.

Anyway, for your theories to have value, they'd actually match reality. I don't know which 32 3x laced eyeletless rims you're looking at, but all the ones I've seen seem to be winning the "struggle" handily. Even mediocre Matrix aero rims laced this way seem to stand up to decades of use and tension.

Just for clarity, I mentioned my experience in the hopes you'd stop being so damn condescending to a fellow professional.